I think you misunderstood an observation on ramifications of the political framework in which The $yndicate operated pre-split for a specific dig at you. If anything,. I'll bite though :).
As I understand, from my predecessors, t$ was indeed set to join that war but with different motivations than you. If you recall, there was a leak which featured a nuke bloc representative prodding to see if they could get away with a hit on The $yndicate. That would have been The $yndicate's CB. I do not recall that to have been cited as yours.
There is a distinction between removing dissenting factors and moving to safeguard your own security.
With regards to acknowledgement however, I never claimed The $yndicate to be innocent of perpetuating the political dynamic of the past year. I did provide an account on how and why we ended up perpetuating it. The point which was being made was that the particular combination of bipolarity and tier consolidation had a restrictive effect on The $yndicate's (and I daresay, others') ability to fulfill its stated desires. Hence why it was relevant to provide that information as a background to our moves. Our potential involvement for very different reasons in one skirmish cited as anecdotal evidence is much less relevant to the broader point being made and was therefore left out.
I do not believe your alliance's objective to have been the systematic removal of dissenting factors at all. But you were one of two actors locked in a cold war and and that rivalry overshadowed the remaining spheres. Was it the objective? I very much doubt it. Did it occur nonetheless as a result of natural tendencies? Yes. On both sides.